R v Warwick (No.8) - [2018] NSWSC 354

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warwick (No.8) [2018] NSWSC 354
Hearing dates: 7 March 2018; 16 March 2018; 20 March 2018;
Date of orders: 23 March 2018
Decision date: 23 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Application for release pursuant to the Bail Act 2013 filed on 26 February 2018 is dismissed

Catchwords: CRIME – bail application – accused charged with four counts of murder and other serious indictable offences – where accused required to show cause – evidence as to access of accused to his legal representatives and documents in custody – evidence as to efficacy of electronic monitoring system – strength of Crown case – cause not shown – application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1999
Cases Cited: DPP (NSW) v Tikomaimaleya (2015) NSWCA 83
JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978
R v Warwick (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 1225
R v Warwick (No.5) [2018] NSWSC 70
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: The Crown
Leonard John Warwick (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
K McKay / G Christofi (Crown)
R Thomas (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
A R Conolly & Co (Accused)

File Number(s): 2015/222068
Publication restriction: Not to be published until after return of verdict by Jury or further order of the Court. Non publication order lifted on 14 February 2020.

Judgment

Leonard John Warwick (“the accused”) has been arraigned in this Court and is accused of committing a large number of serious offences.
The accused was first arrested and charged on 29 July 2015, and has been in custody ever since.
A trial date was fixed to commence on 19 February 2018, with an estimated hearing time of six months. On 9 February 2018, the Court made orders vacating that trial and fixing a new date for trial to commence on 14 May 2018. The estimate of the length of the trial remains the same. The reasons which led to the Court vacating the trial date and fixing a new one are set out in R v Warwick (No.5) [2018] NSWSC 70.
On 26 February 2018, the accused filed a Notice of Motion by way of an application for release under the Bail Act 2013 (“the Act”). The application was heard on three separate days: 7 March, 16 March and 20 March 2017. This judgment deals with that release application.
If the application is not granted the accused will spend the next seven weeks in custody until the trial begins, and will remain in custody for the period of the trial.

The Indictment

As previously indicated, an Indictment has been presented by the Crown. It contains 24 counts. Of those, 21 are the primary charged offences, and 3 counts on the Indictment are charged in the alternative.
The primary counts on the Indictment consist of the following:

4 counts of murder, contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900;

2…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Warwick (No.8)

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick (No.8) [2018] NSWSC 354
Case: [2018] NSWSC 354
Decision Date: 23 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Warwick (No.8), the accused, Warwick, was charged with four counts of murder and other serious indictable offences. The matter came before the court on an application for bail, where Warwick was required to demonstrate cause as to why bail should be granted. The Crown opposed the application, and the court had to determine whether Warwick had shown sufficient cause for his release on bail.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether Warwick had made out a case for bail, considering the seriousness of the charges, the risk of reoffending, and the potential impact on the community if granted bail. The court considered evidence regarding Warwick's access to his legal representatives and documents while in custody, as well as the efficacy of any proposed electronic monitoring system that could be implemented as a condition of bail. Additionally, the court weighed the strength of the Crown's case against Warwick, which included substantial evidence pointing to his involvement in the alleged crimes.

The court found that Warwick had not demonstrated sufficient cause for bail, given the severity of the charges and the strength of the evidence against him. The court noted that Warwick's access to legal representatives and documents in custody appeared adequate, and the proposed electronic monitoring system was deemed sufficient to mitigate the risk of reoffending or interfering with witnesses. However, the court was ultimately swayed by the compelling evidence presented by the Crown, which established a strong likelihood of Warwick's guilt if the case proceeded to trial.

The court dismissed the bail application, and Warwick remained in custody pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

Orders